Favourable result for Law 86D

The short answer is that there is no answer to anything but the simplest case of Law 86D.

My starting points are the ruling from the Crockfords Cup Final (in Best foot forward) and a ruling from the Welsh Swiss Teams where one TD colleague (as a player) had a favourable result on a fouled board and another TD colleague (in charge of the event) consulted me on the ruling (see Cancelled board on IBLF).

In the first case, there were two non-offending side and one result and one board where no result was possible. The one result was favourable to one non-offending side and I gave that side an assigned score and the other side an artificial score (average plus). This is how we have been ruling since 2008, with a number of examples occuring a Brighton in that year and last year. But the chief TD says this is not the right approach: when there are two non-offending side one approach is to award artificial scores to both sides and the other possible approach is to award assigned scores to both sides. I am not sure which of these two approaches is thought to be the right one.

In the latter approach, the assigned scores can be based on sympathetic weightings for the result at the table where no result was obtained, so the scores for the two teams will not balance. But the weightings must be sufficiently close that the net IMPs from the assigned scores is less that 6IMP, this being the same as the net IMPs if there were to artificial scores (average plus for both sides).

In the Crockfords Cup Final case, using this approach, the side that defeated 4♠ would get +5IMP (based on 50% 4♠= and 50% 4♠-1 at the "other" table); and other side would get 0IMP (based on a sympathetic 100% 4♠-1 at the "other" table, the best they could do on the board). The net adjustment is 5IMP, which validates the sympathetic weightings as not being too generous.

In the second case, a board was fouled at three tables (in three separate matches) by having the wrong marking of dealer/vulnerability, at one of the tables a favourable result was obtained. Law 87 (Fouled Board) says the scores on a fouled board should stand but be scored separately as provided by regulation. Of course, for head-to-head comparison there is no way of scoring the board but this does not preclude the application of Law 86D. When two results have been obtained on the "same" board but can not be scored, there are lots of possibilties depending on whether there are one or two non-offending sides, and whether favourable results had been obtained on one or both boards, and by which side. In the absence of regulation, I suggested artificial adjusted scores for both sides on "the" board, ignoring the favourable result.

I was hiding behind the phrase in Law 86D "and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side", arguing that this did not apply if there were two non-offending sides (the result can not be favourable to both of them). On IBLF, someone pointed out the words "Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural ..." at the end of the introduction to the laws, which appears to weaken this case.

Summary

One result, one non-offending side

If the result was favourable for the non-offending, they get the benefit of the favourable result, based on an assigned normal result at the other table. In effect the non-offending side get the better of their one result and average plus; and the offending side get the converse score.

This is what we did in England, even before 2008; there was a regulation based on the "could have known" laws (now Law 23).

One result, both sides non-offending

• The established approach was to award both sides the better of the table result and average plus, effectively an assigned score to one side and an artificial score to the other. This approach appears too generous, disadvantaging the rest of the field.
• The simplest approach is average plus, an artificial score for both sides.
• The more equitable appoach is assigned scores to both sides, with some sympathetic weighting but a maximum net score (equal to the sum of average plus to both sides).

We need regulation to tell us which approach is to be adopted, and if there is to be choice of approach, how to choose.

Fouled board, two results

Both results stand but should be score separately, as provided in the regulations for the tournament. There could be one or two non-offending sides and they could have obtained favourable results on one or both boards. Application of any of the approaches above, would lead to separate IMP scores for the two versions of the board (based on a results not obtained at the other tables on each version of the board). In the absense of regulation, we have no way to combine these IMP scores. In my view, we should not try and the only defendable approach is to award artificial adjusted scores.

Favourable result for an offending side

The law allows assigned scores even when the offending side obtains the favourable result, but does not say when it should be done. The withdrawn WBF LC minute and the material at the EBL course in Sanremo said more. For the moment, I will not go there.

Unauthorised Panic

Unauthorised panic is a term that has been coined for a common use of unauthorised information, not always an infraction. A player makes a call that shows some suit or suits and partner misalerts or misexplained, so the player knows that partner has misunderstood the call. At this next turn to call, the player bids his suit (or one of his suit) in an attempt to wake up partner. Usually there are logical alternative to (re)bidding the suit; often bidding the suit again would not itself be a logical alternative.

I suffered an example of this recently: 1♠ – 2♦ – 3♥ – 4NT – 6♦ – 6♥ – 6NT – Pass.

3♥ was an attempt to agree ♦ but was not understood as such and not alerted (UI). 6♦ (after some thought) was unauthorised panic, a second attempt to agree ♦. The same twelve tricks are available in diamonds, spades or NT, so this was not a good score. I was the only one who noticed what had happened.

I do not know what the result would have been if opener had given the correct RKCB response with diamonds agreed, and his partner had continued bidding as if hearts were agreed. Probably the auction would have continued with the same ... 6♥ – 6NT – Pass. So no damage.

Minor penalty card (or not)

Law 50 B

A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; ...

The first sentence suggests that if two cards are played to a trick, a card below the rank of honour that remains unplayed becomes a minor penalty card. This is how we ruled for a number of years.

The second sentence suggests that if two cards are played and the unplayed card was the card originally intended to be played, then that card becomes a major penalty card (regardless of rank). To apply the second interpretation, we need to know which card was intended to be played and there may be no alternative but to ask the player (away from the table). This involves a number of awkward points: the player choosing which of two cards to designate as played needs to know that the status of the remaining card depends on which card was originally intended, the player may lie (or be suspected of lying) in answering which card was originally intended, and are the opponents entitled to know which card was originally intended or just the status of the remaining card (and, if they know the law, they may deduce which card was originally intended)? The originally interpretation avoids these issues, and (as a consequence) is still adopted by many directors.

Torquay

At the recent EBU congress in Torquay, we came across an example where the original intent was clear, and the second interpretation did not lead to these awkward issues, and a card below the rank of honour exposed as one of two cards played to a trick clearly became a major penalty card.

East, a defender, had previously discarded on a diamond trick, played ♣9 to a subsequent diamond trick, but when it reached the table a small diamond appeared beneath the ♣9. The application of Law 58 to the two cards played simultaneously meant the diamond must be played, because it was the legal play. It was clear that East did not think he had a diamond in his hand, so the director was content that the ♣9 had been the card played (exposed through deliberate play) and so was a major penalty card; without having to ask East away from the table.

In retrospect, this is really two examples. It would have been possible to make the determination that the ♣9 was originally intended, without the combination of two circumstances: the earlier revoke and the ♣9 being the original only visible card. If there had been an earlier revoke and both a diamond and a club appeared as played, it may be possible to rule that the card that should have been played to the revoke trick was not the intended card. Alternatively, if the club was played completely obscuring the diamond until the two cards were on the table and became separated, it would be possible to rule that the club was the originally intended played card.

As in many other cases, determining intent and asking questions to determine intent are things the laws should avoid.